Sarah E. Lavoie, Partner at Burns, Bryant, Cox, Rockefeller & Durkin Dover, NH

No. 2019-0250

September 18, 2020

Vacated and remanded.


  • Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petitions to annul?


Defendant filed petitions to annul three convictions for simple assault, a charge for breach of bail conditions which was nol prossed and a charge of simple assault which was nol prossed.  The trial court denied all of the petitions to annul because the defendant had subsequent convictions.  The Court was unable to determine the statutory grounds under which the trial court denied the petitions and vacated the trial court’s orders.  The Court agreed with the defendant that if the trial court denied her petitions to annul the records of arrests or charges that did not result in convictions because it found them to be untimely under RSA 651:5, III or because it improperly applied RSA 651:5, VI(b), then it had erred.  The Court held that the defendant’s records of convictions and arrests or charges not resulting in conviction were eligible for petitions to annul and not time barred.  The Court remanded for the trial court to determine whether granting the annulment petitions would assist in her rehabilitation and also be consistent with the public welfare.


Gordon MacDonald, Attorney General, (Susan P. McGinnis on the brief and orally), for the State. Christopher M. Johnson, Chief Appellate Defender, of Concord on the brief and orally for the defendant.